Dream Turns Nightmare: Milwaukee Police Officer to Be Deported

[peejay 327]

Ex-officer who used dead cousin's ID gets deported

He returns to Mexico after lying about being a U.S. citizen to become a Milwaukee police officer

By CARRIE ANTLFINGER

Associated Press

MILWAUKEE — A man who took a dead cousin's identity to pose as a U.S. citizen in order to become a police officer was deported from the United States on Sunday.

Oscar Ayala-Cornejo, 25, was arrested May 31 after an anonymous tip and was charged with falsely representing himself as an American citizen.

He accepted a plea deal, agreeing to be deported, and resigned from the Milwaukee police force. A judge sentenced Ayala last month to a year of probation.

Darryl Morin, special-projects coordinator for the League of United Latin American Citizens, said Ayala left on a flight out of Milwaukee on Sunday morning.

He was flown to Guadalajara, Mexico, where his family moved from in 1992.

Tale was dad's idea

In a phone interview on Saturday, Ayala said he was sad to leave his family and friends but was optimistic. He plans to stay with relatives in Guadalajara and study computer engineering.

"I enjoyed my time here and I have no regrets," he said.

Being a police officer was his dream job.

"I love this country," he said Saturday. "I love everything it has to offer."

In November, Ayala said his father helped him change his identity to Jose Morales, a cousin who was a U.S. citizen but who died as a child of stomach cancer.

He had told his father he wanted to become a police officer after the department recruited at his high school.

He said he would have had to go back to Mexico when he became an adult to wait years before becoming a citizen, and his father didn't want to separate the family. His sister was married to a citizen, his brother was born in this country and his parents were on their way to becoming permanent residents.

His father died of leukemia in 2004, before he could see his son become a police officer that December.

Ayala doesn't hold his father responsible.

"The cards that we were dealt just weren't the best ones," he has said. "If I wouldn't have done this, I would still be in Mexico waiting to see if I could ever see my family."

His 27-year-old brother, Alex, was fired from the Police Department in September for lying about his brother's identity, but he won his job back this month, with a 10-day suspension without pay.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5400302.html

[Fandango 1,439]

C'mon Steven, say it. I dare you to call ole' Abe a fascist.

First of all, we're talking about how people feel about laws as they are applied, which is something different from following law. I'm not about to go out and grow marijuana in my house even though I think the law against doing so is ridiculous. That said, if my neighbor is caught growing marijuana in his house and is sentenced to 10 years in prison, I'd say that anyone of my neighbors who rejoices in that sentence is being a legal zealot, particularly if that neighbor was a good person who was an upstanding citizen.

I don't understand why people take comfort or pleasure when someone is unjustly punished. Of course you argue that justice was served but each time you try to articulate why justice was served you fall back on the, 'because they broke the law' argument. When your argument is based purely on the legality of the situation and then equate that to justice, then yes, that is having a fascist view of law. I'm sorry if some people take that as a derogatory term, but it is as correct a term as possible.

But your scenario is flawed. In your example, you can't see being happy that your neighbor was arrested because you feel the law against growing marijuana is 'ridiculous'. But none of us who are happy to see the law being carried out find the law 'ridiculous' when it comes to illegals. That's what you're not understanding. We're not sittin here laughing like Nelson from the Simpsons just because 'someone got busted'. We're reveling (well this is speaking for me, and an assumption of others) because it's something that we're concerned about, and to see progress being made in enforcement shows improvement. There's a sense of justice.

Pretty much every person here...if not all...who has expressed views of being anti-illegal has done so and laid out reasons and concerns. But no matter how many times we go round, it falls on deaf ears. We're called racists, fascists, zealots, hate filled, etc. That does a disservice to not only the matter at hand, but to yourself...because with the finger pointing and name calling, you will never allow yourself to really understand the reasons why people feel differently.

Here's your analogy: your neighbor grows weed....you don't see it as a big deal....I do, because I feel it negatively impacts the community. He gets arrested. I wouldn't expect you to dance a jig, but don't dare call me a fascist if I do.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

C'mon Steven, say it. I dare you to call ole' Abe a fascist.

I don't understand why people take comfort or pleasure when someone is unjustly punished. Of course you argue that justice was served but each time you try to articulate why justice was served you fall back on the, 'because they broke the law' argument. When your argument is based purely on the legality of the situation and then equate that to justice, then yes, that is having a fascist view of law. I'm sorry if some people take that as a derogatory term, but it is as correct a term as possible.

Go back and read that quote of Abe. By your above definition, that makes him a fascist in your view.

Now, we can argue all day about whether this individual was unjustly punished. The facts of the case are apparently these: He assumed an identity that he knew wasn't his. He deceived any and all authorities he ever came in contact with. Then even went so far as to become a law enforcement officer based on his fraudulent identity. The court found that the guy falsely represented himself as a US citizen. That's a crime. He was afforded due process and now he's gone. We're all better off for it. Cutting him loose in the US would send a terrible signal across the country.

Edited December 24, 2007 by Mr. Big Dog

[one...two...tree 2,762]

C'mon Steven, say it. I dare you to call ole' Abe a fascist.

I don't understand why people take comfort or pleasure when someone is unjustly punished. Of course you argue that justice was served but each time you try to articulate why justice was served you fall back on the, 'because they broke the law' argument. When your argument is based purely on the legality of the situation and then equate that to justice, then yes, that is having a fascist view of law. I'm sorry if some people take that as a derogatory term, but it is as correct a term as possible.

Go back and read that quote of Abe. By your above definition, that makes him a fascist in your view.

Now, we can argue all day about whether this individual was unjustly punished. The facts of the case are apparently these: He assumed an identity that he knew wasn't his. He deceived any and all authorities he ever came in contact with. Then even went so far as to become a law enforcement officer based on his fraudulent identity. The court found that the guy falsely represented himself as a US citizen. That's a crime. He was afforded due process and now he's gone. We're all better off for it. Cutting him loose in the US would send a terrible signal across the country.

Go back and read my statements. I never called someone a fascist. I said a particular view of law as reigning supreme is a fascist view. Are you arguing that it isn't? If it isn't, then please tell me what is a fascist view of laws to enlighten me.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

C'mon Steven, say it. I dare you to call ole' Abe a fascist.

I don't understand why people take comfort or pleasure when someone is unjustly punished. Of course you argue that justice was served but each time you try to articulate why justice was served you fall back on the, 'because they broke the law' argument. When your argument is based purely on the legality of the situation and then equate that to justice, then yes, that is having a fascist view of law. I'm sorry if some people take that as a derogatory term, but it is as correct a term as possible.

Go back and read that quote of Abe. By your above definition, that makes him a fascist in your view.

Now, we can argue all day about whether this individual was unjustly punished. The facts of the case are apparently these: He assumed an identity that he knew wasn't his. He deceived any and all authorities he ever came in contact with. Then even went so far as to become a law enforcement officer based on his fraudulent identity. The court found that the guy falsely represented himself as a US citizen. That's a crime. He was afforded due process and now he's gone. We're all better off for it. Cutting him loose in the US would send a terrible signal across the country.

Go back and read my statements. I never called someone a fascist. I said a particular view of law as reigning supreme is a fascist view. Are you arguing that it isn't? If it isn't, then please tell me what is a fascist view of laws to enlighten me.

I see. A person can hold a fascist view but not actually be a fascist. Is that essence of your statement?

[NavarreMan 10]

C'mon Steven, say it. I dare you to call ole' Abe a fascist.

I don't understand why people take comfort or pleasure when someone is unjustly punished. Of course you argue that justice was served but each time you try to articulate why justice was served you fall back on the, 'because they broke the law' argument. When your argument is based purely on the legality of the situation and then equate that to justice, then yes, that is having a fascist view of law. I'm sorry if some people take that as a derogatory term, but it is as correct a term as possible.

Go back and read that quote of Abe. By your above definition, that makes him a fascist in your view.

Now, we can argue all day about whether this individual was unjustly punished. The facts of the case are apparently these: He assumed an identity that he knew wasn't his. He deceived any and all authorities he ever came in contact with. Then even went so far as to become a law enforcement officer based on his fraudulent identity. The court found that the guy falsely represented himself as a US citizen. That's a crime. He was afforded due process and now he's gone. We're all better off for it. Cutting him loose in the US would send a terrible signal across the country.

Go back and read my statements. I never called someone a fascist. I said a particular view of law as reigning supreme is a fascist view. Are you arguing that it isn't? If it isn't, then please tell me what is a fascist view of laws to enlighten me.

Fascism is when one adheres to laws as supreme and any deviation from those laws as intolerable.

Steve, I believe this is where you called me and others a fascist.

I looked and found several definitions of Fascism but this one seemed to be fair and accurate based on different examples of fascist governments. It is more or less presented as a random sample of the definition of fascism. Granted there are many different and varied definitions of the word/idealology.

I believe that what you refer in your definition pertains to the government over enforcing the laws (per #12 below). Our problem is that we cannot get the government to enforce the laws they already have. When the government finally does get off their ### and does what they are supposed to do then people get up in arms and call them fascist. While I do find that the great majority of this definition describes our current administration, the only evidence I see blatantly displayed is the twisting of executive privilege laws, not a government sponsored crackdown on the general population.

*****

The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism

Free Inquiry http://www.secularhumanism.org/fi/

Spring 2003; 5-11-03

Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to (sic) media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed

to the government's policies or actions.

9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

*****

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Go back and read my statements. I never called someone a fascist. I said a particular view of law as reigning supreme is a fascist view. Are you arguing that it isn't? If it isn't, then please tell me what is a fascist view of laws to enlighten me.

I see. A person can hold a fascist view but not actually be a fascist. Is that essence of your statement?

Why not? Do you think people are ideologues incapable of having a mixture of political opinions and views?

Anyhow, I think you're deliberately steering this into something different. Back to the question, what do you consider is a fascist view of law, generally speaking?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

I'd say number 12 sums it up nicely.

[Ban Hammer 13,340]

[DavidsPrincess 1]

You've got to be kidding....since when do police have limitless power? They have to go through so much ####### just to arrest someone to make sure they aren't breaking any civil liberties. It seems like you are more interested in directing attacks or bashing people's beliefs than talking about the immigration issue.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You've got to be kidding....since when do police have limitless power? They have to go through so much ####### just to arrest someone to make sure they aren't breaking any civil liberties. It seems like you are more interested in directing attacks or bashing people's beliefs than talking about the immigration issue.

Although the word, fascism, carries a negative connotation, the use of the word in an attempt to define a rigid view that the application of our immigration laws are above reproach, particularly when the basic reasoning of that argument is 'because it's the law', is appropriately accurate. A law doesn't equal justice and certainly not all applications of laws, civil or criminal are just. We can argue over whether each case is just or not, but to simply state that a broken law deserves whatever punishment assigned to it is a fascist view of law.

Edited December 24, 2007 by Mister Fancypants

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Go back and read my statements. I never called someone a fascist. I said a particular view of law as reigning supreme is a fascist view. Are you arguing that it isn't? If it isn't, then please tell me what is a fascist view of laws to enlighten me.

I see. A person can hold a fascist view but not actually be a fascist. Is that essence of your statement?

Why not? Do you think people are ideologues incapable of having a mixture of political opinions and views?

Anyhow, I think you're deliberately steering this into something different. Back to the question, what do you consider is a fascist view of law, generally speaking?

Alright, so to you, Abe was a non-fascist with a fascist view of law. Thanks for clearing that up.

Now, I don't disagree with the definition presented earlier under #12. I do, however, disagree that there's any such tendency dominating the US justice system. Most certainly not when it comes to the illegal crowd. They are, one by one, afforded due process when apprehended and before they are removed. That's how a nation that is founded on the rule of law works. That's not how a fascist system works. Not even close.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Go back and read my statements. I never called someone a fascist. I said a particular view of law as reigning supreme is a fascist view. Are you arguing that it isn't? If it isn't, then please tell me what is a fascist view of laws to enlighten me.

I see. A person can hold a fascist view but not actually be a fascist. Is that essence of your statement?

Why not? Do you think people are ideologues incapable of having a mixture of political opinions and views?

Anyhow, I think you're deliberately steering this into something different. Back to the question, what do you consider is a fascist view of law, generally speaking?

Alright, so to you, Abe was a non-fascist with a fascist view of law. Thanks for clearing that up.

Now, I don't disagree with the definition presented earlier under #12. I do, however, disagree that there's any such tendency dominating the US justice system. Most certainly not when it comes to the illegal crowd. They are, one by one, afforded due process when apprehended and before they are removed. That's how a nation that is founded on the rule of law works. That's not how a fascist system works. Not even close.

Reinhard...as I stated earlier, I'm talking about the attitude towards the application of our immigration laws - the belief that such application (enforcement and punishment) are above reproach. If you don't believe that then great, I'm relieved. However, it seems to me that anytime a story like this gets posted here, no matter the circumstances, some of you here rejoice in the punishment of the individual as if justice was served. If the core reason of that attitude is simply because the individual had not followed, broken, or acted outside of our current laws, then that is a fascist view of law.

I'll demonstrate by asking you this - under what circumstances would you find it excusable that an immigrant acted outside of our immigration laws?

Edited December 24, 2007 by Mister Fancypants

[natty bumppo 297]

Go back and read my statements. I never called someone a fascist. I said a particular view of law as reigning supreme is a fascist view. Are you arguing that it isn't? If it isn't, then please tell me what is a fascist view of laws to enlighten me.

I see. A person can hold a fascist view but not actually be a fascist. Is that essence of your statement?

Why not? Do you think people are ideologues incapable of having a mixture of political opinions and views?

Anyhow, I think you're deliberately steering this into something different. Back to the question, what do you consider is a fascist view of law, generally speaking?

Alright, so to you, Abe was a non-fascist with a fascist view of law. Thanks for clearing that up.

Now, I don't disagree with the definition presented earlier under #12. I do, however, disagree that there's any such tendency dominating the US justice system. Most certainly not when it comes to the illegal crowd. They are, one by one, afforded due process when apprehended and before they are removed. That's how a nation that is founded on the rule of law works. That's not how a fascist system works. Not even close.

Reinhard...as I stated earlier, I'm talking about the attitude towards the application of our immigration laws - the belief that such application (enforcement and punishment) are above reproach. If you don't believe that then great, I'm relieved. However, it seems to me that anytime a story like this gets posted here, no matter the circumstances, some of you hear rejoice in the punishment of the individual. If the core reason of that attitude is simply because the individual had not followed, broken, or acted outside of our current laws, then that is a fascist view of law.

I'll demonstrate by asking you this - under what circumstances would you find it excusable that an immigrant illegal alien acted outside of our immigration laws?

[GaryC 7]

You know, who cares what the illegal lovers say? This movement has real legs now and nothing can stop it. Let them cry racism and fascism. In the end their opinions are not going to matter.